Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Apr 17, 2007, 21:10 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704171405060.5473@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <200704172146.33665.andyparkins@gmail.com>

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:

> 
> If you define "work" as "works like cvs/svn does", then I was fine with 
> it.

I can't really argue against that. Yes, I agree 100% that we can "work" in the sense that "cvs/svn works". There's clearly no fundamental reasons why you can't, since svn/cvs obviously do it.

I just do have higher standards. I really dislike CVS, and in many ways I actually think that SVN is even worse (not because it's really "worse", but because I think it is such a waste - it fixes the _trivial_ things about CVS, but doesn't really fix any of the underlying problems).

So I don't actually think that CVS "works".

> Bit-for-bit as in CRLF is untouched?  No?  Bit-for-bit as in you said 
> you were okay with keyword-collapsing but not expansion?  You're just 
> as willing to compromise as me, you've just drawn the line in a 
> different place.

Bit-for-bit as in "you have to be able to trust every single bit".

And no, I don't actually love CRLF either. But it doesn't have quite the same fundamental problems. It has issues too, but they are fundamentally smaller, and I think making "git compatible with Windows" is also a lot more important than making "git compatible with CVS users".

Windows we cannot change. CVS users we can try to help.

		Linus